CalJunket |
|
|
Campus personalities present and past Rebecca C. Brown and Tommaso Sciortino tackle the issues. This week on a very special CalJunket: Rebecca learns not to chew with her mouth open and Tommaso finds out his best friend is addicted to no-doze. Site feed: caljunket.blogspot.com/atom.xml
AIM Rebecca:
Archives
|
Monday, September 29, 2003
In one of the more flagrant examples of defying a stupid law with an even more stupid (and harmful and disgusting) protest, the Florida band Hell on Earth (whose music I can only assume is sub-par... Can you blame me? They're called Hell on Earth!) plans to include an onstage suicide in one of their performances and broadcast it on their website. The groups is attempting to speak out against a new law in their city of St. Petersburg that prohibits physician-assisted suicide. Call me old-fashioned, but I take life pretty seriously. So seriously that I won't even eat a crab, who probably has the neurological capacity of my left thumb. Furthermore, I take quality of life pretty seriously. So seriously that I refuse to drink the milk of a cow who was treated like anything less than a valued house pet. Thus, and I do not belive I am contradicting my previous contention that all life is equally valuable, I respect a person's desire to end his life if he is truly in pain and has no desire to continue living. But, in keeping with that whole "life is valuable" argument, I think the option of suicide should be evaluated and ever so carefully scrutinized with a professional physician and the patient's family or friends. I think the state has a right to legally mandate that its doctors discourage suicide and refuse to assist death unless there is no alternative pain remedy. But a terminally ill adult should have the final say on his condition. Therefore, I think it's a dumb law with good intentions. There are no good intentions, however, behind Hell on Earth's stunt. Death is tragic and, moreover, personal, not commercial or sensational. If the group genuinely saw injustice in their city's law, they could very well work with health care officials and local politicians, armed with research and first-hand testimonial, to revoke the law. Instead they have chosen to make a mockery of the pain of suicide. In unrelated news, I had a fairly successful trip to the dentist today. (If any of you with Delta PMI need to find a dentist in the area, I'd highly recommend this one. Berkeley Hills Dental Care. On Telegraph and Woosley. Not in the hills.) I had the base filling for a crown put in after a good 30 minutes of drilling. If any inordinate pain or breakage occurs in the next two weeks, a root canal will be my ultimate fate. While in my mouth, Dr. Nikfarjam also noticed that I need to get at least one of my sprouting wisdom teeth removed. I can't wait. (0) comments Another blog for your blog-visiting repotoire Saturday, September 27, 2003
(Rebecca Loses: Her Sunglasses; Subsequently Finds Them Between the Cushions) Excellent game. I hail originally from Southern California. Long Beach to be precise. A few of my high school aquaintences attended USC. They're now spending five times what I do for a comparable education. Not that it has anything to do with football. Just saying is all. "Take off that red car!" I viewed the game from the comfort of a frat house. A dozen or so alumni came over to the house for today's event. It seems the majority of frat boys age to become frat men. The Frat Graduation Package includes a baseball cap, khaki shorts, a blond wife, and a sense of entitlement. Just saying is all. On an 80's flashback note, the Cal band is currently eating hot dogs at the frat after playing a few spirited songs for the brothers and alum; one alum requested "Lady in Red." Ouch. (0) comments NEWSBREAK: Doors of East Elevator in Eschleman Hall Opening Very Slowly Tuesday, September 23, 2003
San Francisco, CA - The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided today that the unprecedented California recall election will take place on October 7 as originally scheduled, despite the contetnion from the American Civil Liberties Union that outdated punch-card ballots are less accurate than electronic voting systems and thus disefranchise thousands of voters from dense minority populations in six counties throughout the state. The ACLU took today's ruling in stride, and shortly after the court's decision announced that they have more ambitious plans on the horizon. ACLU presidnet Nadine Strossen told reporters Tuesday that their next project is to delay Christmas, which the organization beleives is inaccurate and unreliable, and which is specifically unfair to minorities. The case will be heard by the US Supreme Court this coming Friday. Said Strossen, "Data from all around the nation indicate that poor and minority children are the most likely to receive crappy Christmas gifts, if in fact they receive gifts at all. In nearly every community included in the study, African American and Latino youngsters more than any other ethnic groups were the victims of pre-used gifts, gifts from Walmart, a piece of fruit in lieu of a real gift, or simply no gifts whatsoever. This is unfair. Absolutely unfair." ACLU spokespeople are citing outdated equipment and profiling as the source of these discrepencies. According to the group, Santa Claus' sleigh, deer, and elves do not have the technology to serve every American child equally, prompting Claus to distribute his limited resources disproportinally to rich white kids whose parents have wider chimneys and superior cookies. The group is asking for a six month delay of the holiday, which should give Claus and his faculty ample time to update toy production and distribution systems, including speedier, more ergonomically sound toy-building technology and more accurate electronic checking-it-twice devices. They are also requesting that diveristy training be legally mandated for each North Pole staff member. Claus' spokesmen Jingle and Jangle deny allegations that his distribution techniques are unfair, and are confident that the court will rule in his favor. (I'm not sure why I wrote this. I'm actually on the ACLU's side. On both issues.) (0) comments I'm darn tootin' furious Wednesday, September 17, 2003
Also, the knarliest looking man in America. Not surprisingly, I love watching candidate debates, especially those where a third-party or lesser-known candidate has been invited to offer a "fresh" outlook on the issues. I have noticed in watching panel debates including Peter Camejo that audience response is always positive; the "major" candidates are also well received, but Camejo's (or Huffington's, or McClintock's, or Uberroth's, or frickin' Ross Perot's, for example) refreshing and straightforward views tend to yield spontaneous and surprised applause. Further, when I discuss politics with my friends and family, issue by issue, their views align more closely to those of a third-party or underdog candidate (read "novelty" candidate) than with one of the major two. The Democrats and Republicans in exclusion have failed and continue to fail to adequately represent Americans. No viable candidate in the Republican party has been willing to simultaneously say No to abortion, tax increases, federal supremacy, strict gun control, dumping money into social services, and all the "standard" right wing tenents. Alternately, no probable Democratic candidate has renounced the death penalty, tax cuts, loose environmental regulations, integration of god and government, and all those other typically left-wing views. Without a doubt both the Dems and the Reps have been riddled with political corruption and at times appear to be the alarmingly vacant puppets of lobbyists. While often many Americans feel that one of the Major Two candidates fully represents them, a very substantial number of Americans do not and instead compromise by voting for whoever comes closer. And yet this nation clings fastidiously to a strict two party system, wherein pundits and politicians and the populous convince themselves that having viable thrid and fourth parties is impracticle and idealistic and impossible. (Did you like that little bout with alliteration? I sure did.) Thousands of Americans who felt that Ralph Nader had a better plan for the country than Al Gore voted for Gore simply because "Nader has no chance of winning." In 1992, the strength of a preeminant third-party was proven when Perot earned 19% of the vote. Ninteen! Percent! Bush (The First) got only 37%, less than twice that of Perot. Undoubtedly Perot's numbers would have been much higher had fiscally conservative Americans voted their concience, voted on the issues, instead of voting for who they think had a better chance of winning. In 2000, there were public records of West Coast voters waiting until East Coast election results pointed to a secure Gore victory so they could comfortably vote for Nader. (A lot of good it did them, ultimately.) To paraphrase my mother, I love what Camejo says, but Davis is so much less worse than Simon. American politics has devolved into voting for a lesser of two evils. What are European nations with robust production, socialized health care and higher education, and life expectancies that exceed those in America by 2-5 years doing to manage more than two political parties? Why do people in our nation insist that multiple-party systems are out of reach? I don't get it. On a semi-unrelated note, have you ever noticed how creepy-looking James Craville is? He's pretty creepy-looking. 
(0) comments If only I had an empire that could be subsequently ruined by neglect and corruption. Sigh. Monday, September 15, 2003
Oh, wait, no. That's not what I meant. What I meant was, I'm pleased with the postponment, if it in fact comes into being. I think it's a wonderful idea. These dense and substanitally non-white counties deserve the most accurate and efficient vote-counting system available, just as any county does. Having elections on Tuesdays during hours when most people need to be at work proves counterproductive to the democratic process. (And yes, a good number of people, especially those who have crappy low-paying jobs, have to be on the way to work, at work, or on the way home from work during all open poll hours.) Making people drag their lazy butts out to the polls once (during the same election as the presidential primaries) in a twelve-month period instead of twice will be beneficial. (I'd like to see elections take place over two days on Friday and Saturday so almost everyone will have sufficient time to get to the polls. The easier voting is the better.) Besides the mild annoyance it may cause to the candidates and votership, I can't think of a legitimate reason to oppose the postponement. But I bet you guys can. P.S. David is back at Lighterside after a long hiatus. He's a busy man. (0) comments Your unique brand of physical comedy and penchant for acting out wacky misunderstandings will be sorely missed. Thursday, September 11, 2003
Plus, some tips on staying fit. In case my self-indulgent self-promotion of my self has evaded you, I'm letting you know that today is my twentieth birthday. In honor of the process of aging, I'm going to offer some tips for staying trim without trying. 'Cause frankly, I love food and hate excercising. I love food that is bad for me. And I really, really hate excercising. However, I also enjoy maintaining good blood pressure and a healthy body mass index. Here's how to make your body work for you! Unleash the secret power of water. Intuitively enough, drinking lots of water throughout the day keeps your metabolism going. The benefits of drinking this beverage with meals is twofold: your tummy gets filled with water instead of food so you're less likely to overeat, plus it also helps get your gastric action started to increase the efficiency of your metabolism. Some other perks to the universal solvent: your sweat is more innocuoulsy odored, your skin looks better, you're less prone to embarassing gas, and the continual need to pee gives you a valid excuse to step out of lecture for a bathroom break. Just be sure not to drink so much water that your electrolyte balance is skewed; this can lead to heart attacks. Heart attacks are not fun. Walk, foo.' It's been reported that overweight people who park at the far end of the parking lot and work and on errands, thus necessitating a few extra minutes of walking each day, have lost five pounds in less than a month. Not only does walking instead of driving help burn a few calories, it more importantly keeps your body's metabolism higher throughout the day and while you sleep. And it tones your buns. Mmmm...toned buns. Eat. Again with the metabolism thing. If you go more than a four or five hours with an empty stomach, your body gets angry and starts slowing down. Your body can only assume that each meal it receives is the last before a long, harsh winter or scorching summer without food. If you give it small meals and snacks every few hours, it'll start to trust that it can burn freely without fear of a week long fast. (The phenomenon of your body automactically preparing for frozen winter fasts is especially problematic for us ladies, whose bodies are prepared to store enough food [fat] for us AND our unborn babies, just in case we get pregnant. Stupid body.) More specifically, eat fruits and vegetables. They taste great, they're refreshing, they're loaded with vitamins, plus they're low in calories and high in fiber. High fiber means your GI system needs to work a little harder, which helps your metabolism keep on its toes. High fiber also means high gas, unfortunately. But it helps absorb cholesterol and prevent colon cancer. Don't grow older than the age of 23. That's when it really starts going downhill. Be born genetically predisposed to low blood pressure, low cholesterol, high metabolism, and lean muscle mass. Hey, it works for me and my sister. Lastly, become involved in an emotionally enriching relationship with a strong foundation of honesty, trust, and lots of sex-having. First, sex burns calories, if you're doing it right. Second, this kind of partnership will help remind you that you're an attractive and valuable person no matter how flabby you are. (0) comments Mirror, mirror, down the hall. Who is the laziest blogger of them all? Sunday, September 07, 2003
News to me that Robert C. Byrd was in the Ku Klux Klan. Not surprisingly, that intelligence is not incuded in the Bio section of his official website. The point remains, however, that I happen to share his stance on the current administration's foreign endeavours. I also value his emphasis on education. I guess no one is all bad, or all good. But being in the Klan is bad. So very bad. On a sadder note, as Jeff and his Greenthink remain in hiatus, David and Lighterside seem to have taken the same road. The demand of maintaining a job and higher education understandably precludes blogging. Status of Paul and Afortiori under investigation... This leaves me as one of the few admittedly and decidedly liberal voices currently active in the Cal blog circuit. My obligatory liberal query of the day: Is that a WMD in your pocket? (The answer is No, of course not. 'Cause there aren't any.) On a political note, our president wants to spend $87 billion to further his American Cowboy World Domination Tour '03. Boo, the president. On a me note, my birthday is this Thrusday. Yay, me. On a musical note, the more I listen to Hail to the Thief, the more I like it. Also, the more I listen to the Beatles, the more insurmountable their musical superiority becomes. On a comedic note, you should come to the Squelch comedy show this Wednesday, September 10 at 8pm in the Bear's Lair. Jim Short is out headliner; he's both funny and semi-Australian. Tickets are $5 presale, $8 at the door. Find us on Sproul this week for presale, or come to our short meeting before the show in 109 Wheeler at 7pm on Wednesday. Bring a friend, bring a date, bring a friend-who-could-potentially-become-a-date. (0) comments And he'll be turning 86 this November Thursday, September 04, 2003
Big news, huh?... Wait, what? You mean I didn't actually meet the famous and handsome Tony Blair, let alone have an interview with him, let alone an exclusive one? But you see, I hosted one. Here, at this link. Go ahead, I swear.... See? Well, it makes as much sense as the Daily Californian's headline today. "Berkeley Hosts Gubernatorial Debate." Hmmm. Walnut Creek, Berkeley, whatever. Sweet Jesus, does that newspaper suck. Not to be outdone by a mediocre "newspaper," the CalJunketress (namely me) has her own gubernatorial debate coverage. I do have one caveat, however: I only watched the second half of the debate, and I did so in midst of the excitement of cheeseless pizza and seasoned fries and the Bear's Lair. So some of my facts might be wrong. Like the fact that I hosted Peter Ueberroth at my most recent pool party; it may or may not be a fact that he got totally wasted and threw up in the shoes of Mary Carey, whom I was also hosting. Peter Ueberroth. First, it should be pronounced "Oi-berroth." (Finally my high school German is coming in handy.) Second, I don't like what he says (seeing as I'm liberal and all), but I like how he says it. He cuts through the poop straight to the golden kernals of corn within. Arianna Huffington. I like her politics. She supports same-sex marriages, opposes the death penalty, and supports immigrants' rights. She's a sexy immigrant with great hair who was married to a gay man; she's living the American Dream. Tom McClintock. I guess I always had a french fry in my face when this guy was on TV, and I have no recollection of his performance inthe debate, so I went to his website for some infor. It turns out he's thrice the Republican that Arnold could ever be. He seems unconcerned by California social politics and concentrates instead on taxes and government. In fact, his website only outlines four issues (car tax, energy, workers' comp, and government waste). No education, no gay marriage, no immigrant issues. I find these kind of political blinders to be dangerous. The same goes for politicians who focus entirely on social issues but ignore economic concerns, for example. He's a pure Republican, and it's earning him support. And he'll never win. Cruz Bustamonte. This dude is a total load. He's corrupt, backstabbing, and pandering. And he will win as a result. Peter Camejo. My boyfriend's primary criticism of Pete is the overreaching nature of his campaign. Camejo is too ambitious and too eager to take a holistic (dare I say unrealistic) approach to each issue. Truth is, the man can't answer a political question without answering five more that weren't even asked. For example, when asked about medical marijuana, he started in about tobacco lobbies. But I love that about him. Save for affirmative action, his politics and mine are in remarkable alignment. He's the most trustworty candidate on the entire slate. I think it's remarkable that of the six primary cindidates (the five debaters plus Arnie), four are either not native to America or are the offspring of American immigrants. One of California's greatest resources is its diversity. Most importantly, at the end of the day, we can all agree to legalize medicinal weed. Tom and the Ueberdog call it as a states' rights issue. Arianna and Cruz approach it as a way of minimizing the suffering of terminal disease patients. And Camejo wants to legalize it for everyone in the whole damn country, terminal illness or not. Go Green. (0) comments During this glorious past seven days... |
